If Raptors used scabs would you go?

Since I sit with the owners on this one I would go and watch scabs play @ ACC as a show of support. (assuming ticket prices were lower to reflect product).

Build the league from the ground up and fracture the Union - one by one the players will cross the line. And the scabs would go but only if you support your local product.

Play over seas often in hostile gyms for, in most cases, less than a quarter your NBA salary? really?

Toronto fans should support scabs because it is one of the markets that have been hurt most by the power of player free agency. Owners need more power to ensure that the same half dozen teams don't keep winning all the titles.

Imagine the day of non-guaranteed contracts? yogi? hedo? calderon? Kapono? Hakeem Olajuwon? Not just the owners - the fans would get more joy and not be saddled with crappy product for years while waiting for - underachievers contracts to expire.

A "scab" a derogatory term used to describe a strike breaker. The term is actually an old English insult, and has been in use to describe a despicable person since at least 1590. In the 1700s, someone who refused to join a labor union was called a scab,

Not a chance would I pay money to watch NBDL level players. I pay money to watch the best in the world.

It wouldn't be the NBA anymore. And I don't think the NBA would even consider replacement players.
NBA players are the greatest athletes in the world. And David Stern knows this is the reputation of the league.
He wouldn't put a sub-par product out on the court.

the owners aren't worried about players going overseas. Europe is a mess, especially greece where players like childress have made some good coin. There's no way their threats to go over there will lead to anything substantial. If they do go, then the culture shock will be enough to push them home. It works out for some guys, but with the chance to stay at home, stay in luxury hotels, have chartered flights and make more than 100% of their european contracts no one will go there to stay. The players want to be in the NBA. I too am on the owners side. I don't think they're looking to destroy what the players have, I think they just want a system that works better and doesn't allow for one team to hoard all of the leagues talent.

Not a chance would I pay money to watch NBDL level players. I pay money to watch the best in the world.

It wouldn't be the NBA anymore. And I don't think the NBA would even consider replacement players.
NBA players are the greatest athletes in the world. And David Stern knows this is the reputation of the league.
He wouldn't put a sub-par product out on the court.

I would not go for the entertainment value. I would go in an effort to support the owners cause. I agree with you on the other points basically about NBA level players being the best.

But for the long term benefit of the game the elite players running the league is not good for anyone other then them, and the 5-6 franchises who always win. That is why I would go.

The only thing that will do is give the owners more money, and more cause to try and screw over the truly Great Players by basically saying "the fans don't actually care about the product on the floor, so why would I bother trying to put the best product on the floor." Its all about making money for them. If they could make the same amount of money, without paying the players what they do, then they would. But they can't. They NEED the ELITE level players to sell the merchandise and sell the $1,000 tickets.

You don't keep the Air Canada Center open while charging $10 a ticket.

They don't care about basketball. They care about making money.

You keep hearing how if there is no season next year, then the players will have missed out on $2.1 Billion in Salary.
But the owners will have missed out on nearly the same amounts in profits.

There's simply not enough money or places available in Europe to make a big impact. If 1-2 from every roster go over to Europe, then is that really going to make a difference to the vast majority? In fact, I think it's going to create a rift among the players. The top players, who don't NEED to make money in Europe, will get there choice, but most of the "regular players" who will feel the pinch the most, will be lucky to find a place. This is most likely to create resentment among the rich and middle class players.

And if I wanted to watch a bunch of "scrubs" I'd watch more NDBL games. I watch NBA games because of the level of talent and without NBA players, it's simply not the same level.

The only thing that will do is give the owners more money, and more cause to try and screw over the truly Great Players by basically saying "the fans don't actually care about the product on the floor, so why would I bother trying to put the best product on the floor." Its all about making money for them. If they could make the same amount of money, without paying the players what they do, then they would. But they can't. They NEED the ELITE level players to sell the merchandise and sell the $1,000 tickets.

You don't keep the Air Canada Center open while charging $10 a ticket.

They don't care about basketball. They care about making money.

You keep hearing how if there is no season next year, then the players will have missed out on $2.1 Billion in Salary.
But the owners will have missed out on nearly the same amounts in profits.

you make a compelling argument with good points. I suppose it comes down to a matter of opinion. The NFL union cracked in the last labor dispute and they were able to control guaranteed contracts. Furthermore the league has incredible parody. Small markets like Green Bay (800k people) are just as competitive as the NY and Chicago's of the world.

on a given year any team can go to the finals and players cant all converge in sun city markets. I know the owners got wealthier in the process I wont argue with you there but the fans are much better off. Lakers Bulls Celtics have won more than 50% of the championships in the past 3 decades.... personally I am sick of it...

I was under the impression that the NCAA ball games were large draws in the US, with numerous markets having regular sellouts. Clearly most NCAA teams don't have ANY NBA level players, with the elite ones having maybe 2-3 potentials NBA level players.

I was under the impression that the NCAA ball games were large draws in the US, with numerous markets having regular sellouts. Clearly most NCAA teams don't have ANY NBA level players, with the elite ones having maybe 2-3 potentials NBA level players.

So some people are happy to go see non-NBA level bball.

Great point. However a large part of that support is the fact that they are kids and amateurs.
And its the NCAA. You watch the NCAA for a certain style of game.
You watch the NBA for another style of game.
You take away the elite level players, and you take away what makes the NBA, the NBA.
It would no longer be "Where Amazing Happens." And you could no longer claim to be the best league in the world. Regardless of support, you are settling for an inferior product.

I was under the impression that the NCAA ball games were large draws in the US, with numerous markets having regular sellouts. Clearly most NCAA teams don't have ANY NBA level players, with the elite ones having maybe 2-3 potentials NBA level players.

So some people are happy to go see non-NBA level bball.

I dont think this is a good argument.

a) There are many many NCAA teams at different levels/divs.
b) Only the elite teams (probably 20 or so) get sold out and some like Duke have "small" arenas
c) It is primarily alumni (old and new) who attend...games tend to be on campus
d) The number of games per season cannot compare
e) The cities or towns are not major pop/bus. centres

Yes, some people would attend any cohesively played basketball game at a lower level. But for how long, how often and at what price? It would not be sustainable just as elite players going to play in Europe is not.

a) There are many many NCAA teams at different levels/divs.
b) Only the elite teams (probably 20 or so) get sold out and some like Duke have "small" arenas
c) It is primarily alumni (old and new) who attend...games tend to be on campus
d) The number of games per season cannot compare
e) The cities or towns are not major pop/bus. centres

Yes, some people would attend any cohesively played basketball game at a lower level. But for how long, how often and at what price? It would not be sustainable just as elite players going to play in Europe is not.

I was under the impression that the NCAA ball games were large draws in the US, with numerous markets having regular sellouts. Clearly most NCAA teams don't have ANY NBA level players, with the elite ones having maybe 2-3 potentials NBA level players.

So some people are happy to go see non-NBA level bball.

Most people that attend NCAA games have a very close connection to the school, are usually alumni, students or have been lifelong, die-hard fans of the school. And there are only about 30-35 games a season, including "playoff" games. Fewer games create more demand. And one of the draws to seeing NCAA games is seeing guys who might one day become good-to-great NBA players. Have you ever watched two crappy NCAA teams play against one another? It's barely better than watching CIS basketball, and I don't see that being a huge draw.

The only thing that will do is give the owners more money, and more cause to try and screw over the truly Great Players by basically saying "the fans don't actually care about the product on the floor, so why would I bother trying to put the best product on the floor." Its all about making money for them. If they could make the same amount of money, without paying the players what they do, then they would. But they can't. They NEED the ELITE level players to sell the merchandise and sell the $1,000 tickets.

You don't keep the Air Canada Center open while charging $10 a ticket.

They don't care about basketball. They care about making money.

You keep hearing how if there is no season next year, then the players will have missed out on $2.1 Billion in Salary.
But the owners will have missed out on nearly the same amounts in profits.

This is just my opinion but I don't think he truly great players are the issue. Those players are the ones who make the owners - and league - a tonne of money.

The problem is the players earning much more than their worth. The current system allows a guy to mail it in after he signs a lucrative contract (Eddy Curry is an over used but phenomenal example) or allows 'average' players to take advantage of the MLE or Bird's Rights to get much more money than they are worth. The argument of course is but that is the owners decision. The counter-argument is owners are bidding on the best talent available to improve their team - if they aren't out trying to secure the best talent available then they would be accused of being Sterling-like i.e. cheap and only caring about a profit.

The current system is a lose/lose proposition for owners, in my opinion. It really shows why successful drafting is so important and being stuck in Pacer-ville is pretty much as painful as TWolve-ville.